ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND DIGITALIZATION: THE CASE OF LITHUANIAN PROFESSIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION
An entrepreneurial and innovative higher education institution is considered as a response to the social and economic needs of society. Leadership and governance, organizational capacity - funding, people and incentives, teaching and learning methods, local and international collaboration, and many other aspects play an important role in fostering both digital and entrepreneurial progress in professional higher education. Contemporary higher education graduates are expected to possess soft skills including analytical thinking and innovation, active learning and learning strategies, creativity, originality and initiative, complex problem-solving, critical thinking and analysis as well as technology use, monitoring, and control. They are expected to be risk-taking, flexible, and hyper-adaptable to unprecedented circumstances. Higher education institutions must rethink their strategic priorities and change at a rapid pace. Therefore, the research was designed with the aim to enhance the understanding of the concepts of entrepreneurial higher education institutions and to address the question of how digital transformation in higher education might enhance the teaching and learning process and to better serve an entrepreneurial culture creation. This study examines an entrepreneurship-driven study environment, activities carried out to boost entrepreneurial spirit, and promotion of digital mentality as a success key to digital transformation. The framework of the research is based on the analysis of literature and qualitative research methods. An open-ended survey questionnaire with 7 Vice-Rectors for Studies of public Universities of Applied Sciences in Lithuania was conducted. The results revealed that although professional higher education institutions are similar in nature, they are different in scope and operate in rather different contexts. Transformations are taking place in different ways and with different means and universities clearly state how they can strengthen their role in society. On the other hand, a lack of systematic is outlined as a barrier to transforming faster.
Ajzen, I. (2006). Behavioral interventions based on the theory of planned behavior. Retrived September 9, 2021. from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.613.1749&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2008). University-industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37(10), 1865-1883.
Bosma, N., Hessels, J., Schutjens, V., Van Praag, M., & Verheul, I. (2012). Entrepreneurship and role models. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(2), 410-424.
Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2007). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education (2nd ed.). New York: Open University Press.
Carrier, C. (2007). Strategies for teaching entrepreneurship: What else beyond lectures, case studies and business plan? In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education (pp. 143-159). Chetenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cao, Z. P., & Zhou, M. (2018). Research on the innovation and entrepreneurship education mode in colleges and universities based on entrepreneurial ecosystem theory. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(5), 1612-1619.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: Pergamon Press.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurr, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers and Education, 59(2), 423-435.
Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1(1), 64-77.
Etzkowitz, H. (2008). Triple helix circulation: The heart of innovation and development. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 7(2). 101-115.
Etzkowitz, H. (2012). Triple helix clusters: Boundary permeability at university-industry-government interfaces as a regional innovation strategy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Polity, 30(5), 766-779.
Fernandez-Nogueira, D., Arruti, A., Markuerkiaga, L., & Saenz, N. (2018). The entrepreneurial university: A selection of good practices. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 21(3), 1-17.
Fernet, C., Sencal, C., Guay, F., Marsh, H., & Dowson, M. (2008). The work tasks motivation scale for teachers (WTMST). Journal of Career Assessment, 16(2), 256-279.
Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D. & Welch, M. (2014). Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(2), 1-12.
Gibb, A. (2012). Exploring the synergistic potential in entrepreneurial university development: Towards the building of a strategic framework. Annals of Innovation & Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 1-21.
Guenther, J., & Wagner, K. (2008). Getting out of the ivory tower-new perspectives on the entrepreneurial university. European Journal of International Management, 2(4), 400-417.
Guerrero, M., Kirby, D., & Urbano, D. (2006). A literature review on entrepreneurial universities: An institutional approach. In The 3rd Conference of Pre-communications to Congresses (pp. 1-37). Barcelona: Autonomous University of Barcelona.
Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43-74.
Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2015). What works and why? Student perceptions of “useful” digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1567-1579.
Jääskelä, P., Häkkinen, P., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2017). Teacher beliefs regarding learning, pedagogy, and the use of technology in higher education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3-4), 198-211.
Keast, D. (1995). Entrepreneurship in universities: Definitions, practices and implications. Higher Education Quarterly, 49(3), 248-266.
Khalid. J., Ram, B. R., Soliman, M., Ali, A. J., Khaleel, M., & Islam, M. S. (2018). Promising digital university: A pivotal need for higher education transformation. International Journal of Management in Education, 12(3), 264-275.
Kirby, D. A. (2006). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 599-603.
Lewis, M. A., & Moultrie, J. (2005). The organizational innovation laboratory. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 73-83.
Lombardi, R., Massaro, M., Dumay J., Nappo, F. (2019). Entrepreneurial universities and strategy: The case of the University of Bari. Management Decision, 57(12), 3387-3405.
Mallett, O. (2019), Collaboration in entrepreneurship education: challenges, opportunities and innovations, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 31(3), 177-182.
Markman. G. D., Phan. P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241-263.
Mian, S. (2011) University's involvement in technology business incubation: What theory and practice tell us? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 13(2), 113-121.
O'Connor, K. (2014). MOOCs, institutional policy and change dynamics in higher education. Journal of the Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education: Higher Education and Policy, 68(5), 623-35.
OECD. (2021). Supporting entrepreneurship and innovation in higher education in Lithuania, OECD/EU report 2021. Retrieved September 10, 2021, from https://heinnovate.eu/sites/default/files/shared_file/Final%20HEInnovate-Lithuania_12.11.21.pdf
OECD. (2009). Evaluation of programmes concerning education for entrepreneurship, report by the OECD Working Party on SMEs and Entrepreneurship, OECD. Retrieved September 10, 2021, from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/31/42890085.pdf
Omilion-Hodges, L. M. (2017). Survey: Open-Ended Questions. In M. Allen (Ed.), The sage encyclopedia of communication research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
O'shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A. & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994-1009.
Pires da Cruz, M. F, Ferreira, J. J., & Kraus, S. (2021). Entrepreneurial orientation at higher education institutions: State- of-the-art and future directions. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(2), 100-502.
Plewa, C.,Korff,N.,Baaken,T.,&Macpherson,G. (2013). University--industry linkage evolution: An empirical investigation of relational success factors. R&D Management, 43(4), 365-380.
Rippa, P., & Secundo, G. (2018). Digital academic entrepreneurship: The potential of digital technologies on academic entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146 (Sep), 900-911.
Salamzadeh, A., Salamzadeh, Y., & Daraei, M. (2011). Toward a systematic framework for an entrepreneurial university: A study in Iranian context with an IPOO model. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 3(1), 30-37.
Secundo, G., Rippa, P., & Meoli, M. (2020). Digital transformation in entrepreneurship education centres: Preliminary evidence from the Italian Contamination Labs network. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 26(7), 1589-1605.
Soliman, S. (2005). Systems and creative thinking. Cairo, Egypt: Center for Advancement of Postgraduate Studies and Research in Engineering Sciences.
Staniškis, J. K. (2016). Sustainable university: Beyond the third mission. Environmental Research Engineering and Management, 72(2), 8-20.
Thune, T. (2007). University-industry collaboration: The network embeddedness approach. Science and Public Policy, 34(3), 158-168.
Urbach, N., & Röglinger, M. (2018). Digitalization Cases: How Organizations Rethink Their Business for the Digital Age. Cham, Swizerland: Springer Inter- national Publishing.
Van Vught, F. (1999). Innovative Universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 5(4), 347-354.
Wood, M. S. (2011). A process model of academic entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, Elsevier, 54(2), 153-161.
Zaharia, S. (2002). A Comparative overview of some fundamental aspects of university management as practiced in several European countries. Higher Education in Europe, 37(3), 301-311.
Zhu, Y. (2014). A situated genre approach for business communication education in cross-cultural contexts. In V. Bhatia. & S. Bremmer (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Language and Professional Communication (pp. 26-39). Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Zhu, Y., & Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2013). Balancing emic and etic: Situated learning and ethnography of communication in cross-cultural Management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(3), 380-395.
Zydziunaite, V. (2006). Taikomju tyrimy metodologijos charakteristikos. Retrieved November 15, 2021, from https://www.scribd.com/docum-ent/484377250/%C5%BDyd%C5%BEiunait%C4%97-V-2006-Taikom%C5%B3j%C5%B3-tyrim%C5%B3-metodologijos-charakteristikos
The article published and information contained in this journal such as text, graphics, logos and images is copyrighted by and proprietary to the National Research Council of Thailand.
The article will be published under a CC-BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org). This license means that anyone may freely read, download, distribute and make the article available to the public (in printed and electronic form), provided that the author and the journal as the source are acknowledged, whereas no commercial use is allowed and the work may not be altered, transformed or serve as the basis for a derivative work.